x1800XT > x1900XTX

[Fernito]

Why x1800XT is more expensive than x1900XTX? It isn't better in anyway! :confused:

[ZuljinRaynor]

Check the tech specs. There might be some big difference.

[FireFly]

There will never be a situation where the X1900 XTX is slower than the X1800 XT, because the underlying architecture is identical. Where is the X1800 XT more expensive?

[NutWrench]

It depends on who manufactures it. ATI and NVidia just provide the GPUs. An 1800XT with quality RAM and a nice, big copper heatsink could conceivably cost more than a 1900XTX with crappy RAM and a cheap aluminum fan.

[Fernito]

I don't know... in Chile the X1800XT was more expensive than the X1900XTX, and I thought it was just an issue in Chile... but then went to newegg and realized it was the same situation!

This is an ASUS X1800XT:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121546

My Sapphire X1900XTX costed $354 at newegg.

As far as I know, they all have the same fans, heatsinks and so, so it's a bit weird.

[Kev_Boy]

To my knowledge, X1900s are actually cheaper to construct and hence go for less but are better :)

[Duoae]

To my knowledge, X1900s are actually cheaper to construct and hence go for less but are better :)

Exactly. Smaller die... more chips per wafer... more overclockable etc.

[Hudson]

Yeah, IIRC the first few "über" cards were very expensive (like $700-800) however since then they've settled around $500.

I think Kev's right with the new manufacturing process.

[FireFly]

I don't know... in Chile the X1800XT was more expensive than the X1900XTX, and I thought it was just an issue in Chile... but then went to newegg and realized it was the same situation!

This is an ASUS X1800XT:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121546

My Sapphire X1900XTX costed $354 at newegg.

As far as I know, they all have the same fans, heatsinks and so, so it's a bit weird.
Scarce supply, perhaps. Cards that are no longer in production tend to be less responsive to price drops. However, the X1800 XT was selling for $300 a few months ago.

To my knowledge, X1900s are actually cheaper to construct and hence go for less but are better :)
I don't think so. They're on the same process and the X1900 XT/XTX has 20% more transistors. However, yields on the X1900s are still very high.

The X1950 Pro (3/4 of an X1900 XT), which was recently released, is the first ATI card to run on the 80 nm process. It's about as fast an X1800 XT, but is cheaper to produce, so it retails for $200.

The X1650 XT (1/2 of an X1900 XT) was previewed a few days ago, and is the only other card on the new process. It's as fast a 7600 GT and it should go on sale for $150.

[Fernito]

Oh, I see now :) Thanks for pointing that out.

BTW, this may be a bit off topic... as some of you might have read on another thread, I've had problems with my rig. Well, apart from those problems, there are some things not working well with the video card.

The normal memory clock of this card is 2x775 (1550 MHz), but in the ATI control panel it appears 2x594 MHz... isn't that weird? Also, I've noted some irregularities in some games.

According to this benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/15/graphics_card_buyers_guide_2006_part3/page44.html I should play FEAR at those settings with 75 FPS... however, I barely can reach 60... even in Doom3 I play with 40-50 FPS in some parts... that shouldn't be, should it?

Well, surely those benchmarks were made with a X6800, but I think an E6300 shouldn't do that bad...

[FireFly]

The normal memory clock of this card is 2x775 (1550 MHz), but in the ATI control panel it appears 2x594 MHz... isn't that weird? Also, I've noted some irregularities in some games.
The core clock should be 594 MHz, and the memory clock should be 693 MHz, in 2D mode. When you run a game, Overdrive will overclock the core and memory to 650 MHz and 775 MHz, respectively (or whatever you change the 'requested' settings to).

According to this benchmark: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/15/graphics_card_buyers_guide_2006_part3/page44.html I should play FEAR at those settings with 75 FPS... however, I barely can reach 60... even in Doom3 I play with 40-50 FPS in some parts... that shouldn't be, should it?
You should get 75 FPS in the built in game benchmark (when soft shadows are enabled). Use that as the comparison.

[Fernito]

The core clock should be 594 MHz, and the memory clock should be 693 MHz, in 2D mode. When you run a game, Overdrive will overclock the core and memory to 650 MHz and 775 MHz, respectively (or whatever you change the 'requested' settings to).

Oh, I see now. So, those 650MHz for the core and 775 for the memories work only in 3D mode? Pretty interesting, thanks a lot for that info ;)

You should get 75 FPS in the built in game benchmark (when soft shadows are enabled). Use that as the comparison.

Yeah, I already did that. Ran the built-in performance test and got a 40 FPS average... why? :(

[FireFly]

Oh, I see now. So, those 650MHz for the core and 775 for the memories work only in 3D mode?
Yup.

Yeah, I already did that. Ran the built-in performance test and got a 40 FPS average... why? :(
You could try updating your drivers. Check the control panel to see if you've enabled AA or any other quality settings. Also, run 3D Mark 2006 to see if it's a general system problem.

It might be worth trying higher resolutions to see how the performance scales (if it stays around 40 then it's probably a driver problem).

[Fernito]

Already donwloaded latest drivers (Catalyst 6.9). Ran 3D Mark 06 and got 5500, is that good? :confused:

[Bludd]

6.10 were just released, FYI.

[FireFly]

Already donwloaded latest drivers (Catalyst 6.9). Ran 3D Mark 06 and got 5500, is that good? :confused:
It seems about right for your CPU. What SM 2.0 and SM 3.0 scores do you get?

[Fernito]

Oh, 6.10 was released!? Downloading it right now! :D

Got 2236 for SM2.0; and 2478 for SM3.0

[FireFly]

Got 2236 for SM2.0; and 2478 for SM3.0
Yes, that's fine. Guess it's a F.E.A.R specific problem.